Gotchahammer and Social Contract

[Icarion]

So This weekend I got an chance to play my first game using the Lumineth Realm-Lords, against an opponent I'd never played but who I have chatted with occasionally on a local wargaming group.

As I usually do when Setting up the game, and going through my list with opponent, I gave him a rundown of what my army does, and abilities that he should be aware of, for example, "these guys are 1- to hit if they stay base to base" or "this guy has Ethereal" "These guys can move 28" with a spell" "This lady can make your units take my battleshock tests" ect. 

This is my normal approach as there are so many armies, I figure a refresher to help avoid gotcha moments is a good thing.  A gotcha moment is where  an opponent makes a game choice they never would have if they had been aware of a specific special rule. (For example, not being aware of tides of death, and mistakenly charging Idoneth Deepkin armies in turn 3)

We got around to his army list, and he kinda rushes through it, I start asking what units do, or what the army special rules are (I haven't played his army before) And his response was either you'll find out in game, or you can look it up in the app. I pushed the issue and his response shocked me, he said "I'm not going to give you my strategy to win, if I do that what is the point of playing?"

I packed up my army and went out to lunch instead of struggling through that match.

I guess I have two questions for the community about your local metas, is walking your opponents through your rules to help avoid traps uncommon? And or, do you or opponents you regularly play against consider surprise rules/traps/gotcha moments a core part of the gaming experience. 

 

[TheToastman]

Around me, it's common to help people through your list. There are a couple of our tournament grinders who will politely nudge you out of their traps if they're doing a more casual testing game: you move a model that's in threat range of one of his more convoluted combos "I mean.... I'm not sure I'd make that move right now" and if you ask, he explains what he plans if you do commit to it. 

As for people using gotcha-moments as part of the core gameplay, rarely intentionally. We all have a lot of rules on the table, I don't blame someone if they forget something once or twice, I've unfortunately done it to someone a few times myself. It helps that most of us either aren't playing super seriously, and the folks who do are chill enough to undo some things for forgotten rules.

I have encountered a couple folks before, usually much younger folks who aren't 100% keyed into the social contract part of the hobby, and/or folks who are more in the mindset that the game is fun if you win, with a bigger win being bigger fun. I'd like to add that it's at a person-to-person level,  I do not believe that all people in either/both of these groups do this, or that it's only people belonging to either/both of these groups, these are just the trends I've seen.

The one that gets me is when 2 separate units of the exact same warscroll are deployed together (to serve as a slightly-harder-to-wipe screen or whatever), move together (to speed up the movement phase), but have no way to mark where 1 unit starts and 1 unit stops. I've had multiple games where I'll charge in, do 30 damage to this block of 10, and be told "no it's 2x5, remember" when no, I don't, because I forgot about it since they're all grey plastic with nothing to show the end of 1 unit. I should remember it, yes, but it annoys me that I have to remember the position and unit of individual models in your army.

[swarmofseals]

1 hour ago, TheToastman said:

 I've had multiple games where I'll charge in, do 30 damage to this block of 10, and be told "no it's 2x5, remember" when no, I don't, because I forgot about it since they're all grey plastic with nothing to show the end of 1 unit. I should remember it, yes, but it annoys me that I have to remember the position and unit of individual models in your army.

Ugh, this is terrible practice. The guy should at the very least mark his bases to distinguish the units. I hope he isn't using one run or charge roll for both units.

______

To return to the original question @Athrawes asked, I play three kinds of games:

1. Casual games for fun. These are likely to be more narrative games or matched play games with fluffy or otherwise silly lists. In such games I'm definitely not going to try to catch someone out unless we're actively trying to roleplay it and it suit's my faction's character.
2. "Serious" casual games. Most of my games are like this -- matched play games with at least semi-competitive lists but with nothing on the line. I treat these games as a pure learning experience. I want to test my ideas, find out where I make mistakes and learn how to play against different lists. I do not care who wins or loses and will actively avoid trying to catch opponents out. I will give them a rundown of my army and answer any questions, and if it looks like they are forgetting something mid-game I'll try to remind them if I notice it. I do still keep score of course and try to figure out who is likely to win if we have to finish early, but this is mostly about connecting decisions to consequences and not about "glory".
3. Tournament games. In an actual tournament I will strive to provide my opponent with the warscrolls and all relevant abilities of my army. I will answer any questions honestly, but I'm not going to actively try to stop my opponent from making mistakes or remind them of things mid-game. Of course if they ask me "can you do X?" I will answer honestly.

Personally, I don't see any value in trying to "gotcha" people in casual games, and I think actively deceiving the opponent is a crummy thing to do in any context.

[Kasper]

7 hours ago, Athrawes said:

So This weekend I got an chance to play my first game using the Lumineth Realm-Lords, against an opponent I'd never played but who I have chatted with occasionally on a local wargaming group.

As I usually do when Setting up the game, and going through my list with opponent, I gave him a rundown of what my army does, and abilities that he should be aware of, for example, "these guys are 1- to hit if they stay base to base" or "this guy has Ethereal" "These guys can move 28" with a spell" "This lady can make your units take my battleshock tests" ect. 

This is my normal approach as there are so many armies, I figure a refresher to help avoid gotcha moments is a good thing.  A gotcha moment is where  an opponent makes a game choice they never would have if they had been aware of a specific special rule. (For example, not being aware of tides of death, and mistakenly charging Idoneth Deepkin armies in turn 3)

We got around to his army list, and he kinda rushes through it, I start asking what units do, or what the army special rules are (I haven't played his army before) And his response was either you'll find out in game, or you can look it up in the app. I pushed the issue and his response shocked me, he said "I'm not going to give you my strategy to win, if I do that what is the point of playing?"

I packed up my army and went out to lunch instead of struggling through that match.

I guess I have two questions for the community about your local metas, is walking your opponents through your rules to help avoid traps uncommon? And or, do you or opponents you regularly play against consider surprise rules/traps/gotcha moments a core part of the gaming experience. 

 

Some people will try everything to win - From my experience it is typically middle of the pack players that semi rely on surprise rules to win their games. If Im not in a tournament I want to try and have as fair a game as possible. It holds no value to me if I win just because my opponent was clueless as to what my army can do. I also want the best possible practice against your army for when Im actually playing against a good player.  Giving away your strategy is completely different than telling your opponent that you have access to teleport/deepstrike abilities.

I think your rundown of your army list is a pretty good rule of thumb of how things should be done prior to a game, unless your opponent knows your army inside out - It takes maximum 5 minutes to run through both of your lists and the most impactful subfaction abilities/alligiance traits, but it removes so many bad experiences. 

We usually always play somewhat competitive lists and enjoy tuning our armies to an 11, but even then we still help each other out to have as fair a game as possible. It sucks winning because your opponent was clueless or did obvious major mistakes. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Kasper

[Kadeton]

I always do my best to avoid gotcha moments - I will give my opponent a rundown of my units and how they work before the game, and warn them if they're about to make an obvious mistake (not a poor tactical decision, but an error clearly stemming from ignorance of the circumstances). I expect them to do the same, and will mark them down on sportsmanship if they don't.

In general, it's a lot safer to build your strategy around the assumption that your opponent is going to know what to expect from you. If you plan to win by a gotcha, but your opponent sees it coming, then you've only out-played yourself. Given that I'm already assuming that my opponent won't be surprised, it's a small step from there to simply ensuring that they won't be.

[Aloth_Corfiser]

When I started to play with my 2 buddies we would always remind each other about what our Armies can do and what kind of abilities our Units and Heroes have. It kinda grew from there and I have done the same thing as @Athrawes does. It just is a sign of good form and courtesy in my opinion. When I played against other people than my 2 friends, they also introduced me to the abilities of their armies. So in the end I was lucky to have encountered mostly chill and pleasent people for whom it is just a normal thing to help each other out. 
I'll also give advice to my "opponent" or remind them of their own rules from time to time some of my acequaintances are not as invested as myself into the Hobby. There is just one guy in our community who can perhaps be descried as the typical "That Guy" experience, things he did were:

-asking me to search his artefacts and command traits in his book and pick them because he didn't bother to look them up before
-pretending to have forgotten about certain key rules of the game (priority role, drop count when deploying, etc.) and generaly feign ignorance when being called out
-trying to rush his play in the movement phase as to squeeze in Units that otherwise would not have been able to charge, but gods beware when I move my models incorrectly by the fraction of 1". .... 
-having a pushy attitude and trying to make "his" made up rules to be seen as the legitimate rules - again when being corrected on core-component rules that make the game work, he whines and continues to play with a grumpy attitude
-Work in typical gotcha moments to win at all costs

Sorry for the rant - I guess I just wanted to point out that the experience can be ambivalent and that "That Guy" I described above, is really just 1 Person in 10. 

[Overread]

If an army run-through isn't something he's used too it might be that he's slightly miss-interpreted what you were doing as you setup and as you badgered him for his setup info. It might also be that in his mind, his tactics and choices for how he plays his army, is based upon the options and upgrades he's chosen to take. Thus in his mind if he tells you that his units have certain bonuses, then you'll see his strategy for how he's going to use them in the game. 

Thus to his way of thinking if you know the bonuses before the game then you know his strategy before the game. 

 

It's a subtle line, but one easily muddled up because wargamers are notorious for being REALLY focused on lists and not really all that focused on actual gameplay tactics. So the list becomes the tactical area that people are familiar with. Their strategy doesn't hinge on relative positions, movement, timed attacks, focus on key objectives, obscuring or masking their movement etc..... but instead on the +4 to shooting that their hero has who they are going to place near to your infantry so that they can wipe them out etc...

 

 

 

Personally I would always have my army list written out so that my opponent can see and so that I can remember what unit has what upgrade. It's not information that should be hidden nor concealed. In the situation of someone who has never played against my army, sure I'd likely take the extra time to let them know what does what/let them flip through the battletome etc... That's just good manners and there's no fun in winning if the only reason is that my opponent has literally no clue about what my army can do. The flat stats of a unit is considered common information in the game, open to all sides in the engagement. 

 

Gotcha moments should happen, but not because you just charged your cavalry head on into braced spearmen. Instead it should be when your opponent has moved their units so that suddenly your super powered Keeper is surrounded, isolated from support and easily taken down.

[JPjr]

this is a really interesting one, I like to think of myself as about as far from a WAAC competitive type as you can get, full narrative fun times here AND YET I struggle with aspects of this a little bit.

Warhammer is, I would suggest, a game of strategy & tactics and one where you're in a state of imperfect information.

you can just line your troops up and have them all charge headlong at the enemy, and for some armies that's both narratively sound and probably a decent enough plan but a lot of armies it's a case of lining up lots of different moving parts, getting them to all work together at the right time and in the right place.

I look at it less as a 'gotcha' and more of a general using his tools to the best of their abilities, if someone attacks one section of my army because I've left it as a tempting, possibly weak looking target but I've set it up so that when he commits x I can do y then to me that feels like good playing.

Now I have zero problems letting my opponent have access to warscrolls (I mean they're free and online anyway),  explaining key parts of the army at the start of a friendly game, especially if there's some particularly egregious ability they have that others might not know about or indeed even explaining mid game if someone says oh what can x or y do again... 

BUT I'm less keen to correct someone's moves or walk them through my tactics (unless it's literally someone's first couple of games but then that's a totally different scenario).

for me for all the importance of list building (or not) the game happens at the table  with what I do with those models. if I spend all that time figuring out which units work best together, position them right, entice the enemy to do something and then just before I spring the trap go 'oh by the way if you move there, next turn I'll have a good chance of destroying you', so they can reset and do something else, then what's the point?

It's like any game, we were playing Root the other day (if you've not played it it's an amazing very high level abstracted war-game/resource management  4x boardgame that hides some really interesting sneaky little political/social themes behind ridiculously cute artwork), I'd figured out my plan for that game and was busy executing it.

Towards the end I'd set it up so that I could win next turn, or if my wife called my bluff on one space lose half my points. I'm sat there trying to keep a straight face as she keeps picking pieces up, going to move them then stopping. But I wasn't going to tell her, and likewise once we've played a game or two I wouldn't expect her to tell me, I'd learn from that experience and factor that in next time I played.

It's a game of toy soldiers, whilst you set out to win the game, the point is to have fun whether you win or lose. so if I get hammered because I walked into a trap then I can make a narrative out of it and avenge myself another time (or not). Being a good loser is as, if not more, important as being a good winner in this game. 

[Overread]

26 minutes ago, JPjr said:

 

BUT I'm less keen to correct someone's moves or walk them through my tactics (unless it's literally someone's first couple of games but then that's a totally different scenario).

 

Honestly I think you're on the same wavelength as the rest of us in the thread. 
The open information on what stats your units have, what abilities, modifiers and rules they operate with is common knowledge open to both players through the entire game. You don't hide that information when it comes to options you've picked and the info in the book can be read at any time. 

I, and others, would fully agree that, outside of a teaching/tutorial type game, if your opponent makes a "wrong move" that is their choice. If you've tricked them into making a poor move that is on them, that is part of the flow of the game.

 

 

Teaching/training/tutorial/first games with newbies or those learning are totally different, where you might tell them before they make a move or even go through the options with them and help them weigh up the pros and cons. In that situation you're helping to guide them through the game and not rely only on experiences to teach them. Especially since experiences can give missleading lessons - eg we've all that that time that our anti-tank unit fails to do any damage to a tank in a turn due to the dice; but then manages to wipe out a unit it "shouldn't" be able too in the next turn - again because of the dice. In an ideal world we'd help educate newbies so that they'd understand that whilst that did happen, it was statistically unlikely to happen and that it was a fluke series of events, not a lesson that their anti-tank is actually anti infantry. 

[JPjr]

yeah to be honest by the time I'd written about 2/3 of that I was pretty sure it was a load of old nonsense but sunk cost fallacy and all that I heroically ploughed on regardless.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

I look at it less as a 'gotcha' and more of a general using his tools to the best of their abilities, if someone attacks one section of my army because I've left it as a tempting, possibly weak looking target but I've set it up so that when he commits x I can do y then to me that feels like good playing.

 

I think this is usually really fun and the way to play. But when its squigs, where there is no visual indication that they have the fly rule, it can become a gotcha moment. If it's black dragon... there is some personal responsibilities there to realise it can fly  But for squigs flying the Gloomspite player should mention it when setting up. 

But i agree with most in this thread. I tell what everything does, but not the potential tactics unless it's someones first game. I.E. I would tell that I have aetherquarts that gives me -1 bravery if I use it, I will tell the veiled wizard can transfer my battleshock to you. But against an experienced player I wouldn't tell I could use it in a combo. But usually I would just mention it combo's. 

 

[Overread]

I'd never feel a need to mention "combos" in the game outside of a lesson game. Even then I'd be more keen to mention the bonuses and then suggest that there's a combo in there and see if the player can work out what the combo potentially is. Mentioning a combo at deployment phase is either telling your opponent what you're going to do (that will include unit movement and relative positions etc...) or you're double bluffing which is kind of against the general theme of open information phase of the game. So I'd say just keep it purely simple in mentioning unit names, weapons, upgrades etc...

 

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

for me for all the importance of list building (or not) the game happens at the table  with what I do with those models. if I spend all that time figuring out which units work best together, position them right, entice the enemy to do something and then just before I spring the trap go 'oh by the way if you move there, next turn I'll have a good chance of destroying you', so they can reset and do something else, then what's the point?

Precisely.  I have a lot to say on this, and will later at my PC (6 a.m. phone typing is yucky), but yeah, this.

[GrimDork]

Personally, I think it's fair to give your opponent the kind of information found on an AoS reminders printout (maybe even have a copy for them along with your list). Yes, they can look up the warscrolls but, unless they have the tome, they will not know allegiance abilities, artefacts etc. Giving them a printout wouldn't give away your tactics, just all the rules that apply to your army.

[Orsino]

44 minutes ago, GrimDork said:

Personally, I think it's fair to give your opponent the kind of information found on an AoS reminders printout (maybe even have a copy for them along with your list). Yes, they can look up the warscrolls but, unless they have the tome, they will not know allegiance abilities, artefacts etc. Giving them a printout wouldn't give away your tactics, just all the rules that apply to your army.

This is what I do, AoS reminders makes it nice and clear and games flow better if you share info at the start rather than having to explain your army mid-game. However I don't consider not volunteering information to be deception/cheating and I'd have no issue playing with someone who didn't give me a rundown, although refusing to answer questions seems a little silly. 

[Neverchosen]

When I played Fantasy as a teenager nothing was ever revealed beforehand and warscrolls/unit profiles were not readily available. If you looked across the battlefield and there was a giant fat frog on a pedestal you had to just assume it was trouble. I found this really frustrating in competitive environments as it made learning the game more difficult and sometimes resulted in a win purely from your opponent not understanding your army. However, in a friendly environment there was nothing better than not revealing a chosen spell lore, an assassin or some fanatics until they would have maximum impact. But this usually came after familiarizing yourself with a friend's army or play-style so when they showed up with a smaller army you'd often be fairly suspicious... In my case it was always a question of how many magic items I could place on a character. I will say it was a pleasant surprise that it seems standard to share your units abilities and rules beforehand in my experiences with Age of Sigmar. I think it encourages a sense of camaraderie and fellowship that is much less negative or toxic.  

So, in a strange way I really think that stakes and attitude really determine my views on this subject and that it is something that both sides should agree upon. So I think that this is something that should a) be a part of tournament rules b) it should be discussed before hand in any friendly matches. If one person feels that revealing their list will spoil the game and the other wants to share maybe a roll off: 1-3 you keep it private 4-6 you explain the armies to one another (treat it as a scouting roll?). I do think it is bad for one side to reveal everything and the other to play the cards close to the chest as that creates a really unfair advantage.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Neverchosen

[JPjr]

21 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

If you looked across the battlefield and there was a giant fat frog on a pedestal you had to just assume it was trouble

you say this like it's a bad thing and yet I personally would take it as a valuable lesson to be strictly and rigidly applied in real life too.

[amysrevenge]

"These are the rules for my army" - public.  Save everyone some time and share that stuff when asked, or volunteer it at the start of the match.

"This is how I will use them" - private.  Spring that on them without warning.

Seems obvious to me, but I guess not to everyone.

[Overread]

5 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

"These are the rules for my army" - public.  Save everyone some time and share that stuff when asked, or volunteer it at the start of the match.

"This is how I will use them" - private.  Spring that on them without warning.

Seems obvious to me, but I guess not to everyone.

I think the problem for some is that they have very little idea how they will use things in the game. It's not totally their fault either; tactical teaching/learning is VERY poorly communicated and done within the hobby in general. We are good at teaching mechanics and painting and building and army building; but when it comes to tactical gameplay we are very very poor at teaching it. 

 

So for some they don't really have many tactical ideas beyond what is based upon what options they chose for their units. So for them it can become hard to separate the two because they feel that putting a close combat weapon and close combat buff on their infantry unit is their tactical choice to make a hard hitting close combat unit. For them, telling their opponent that information up front is basically revealing their tactical ideas for that unit - that its going to be moved in fast/safe and engage with the enemy in close quarters. 

 

Even though they know all that info is "public" knowledge in the game, it becomes hard for them to highlight it by mentioning it specifically at the deployment phase. 

[Euphanism]

I usually try to ask before the game if they are at all familiar with what I'm playing, how it generally works, etc. If they seem totally clueless, I'll try to explain at least the basic idea of the army, without going into individual details. Stuff like how Ossiarch ignore battleshock, how graveyards work, etc. I play a lot of different armies, so honestly if I think my opponent is forgetting something I tend to remind them politely as well. Not saying I'll warn them before making a dumb move, but more like "Hey, you forgot your Disgustingly Resilient save there."

I'll admit though, if my opponent announces their list as 'This is the exact list that took the top spot at the recent (big tournament)' then all bets are off. 

[Greyshadow]

There are players who aim to take their game to the next level and revel in playing the best of the best. These players often have a huge amount of experience and sometimes an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules. They play very quickly and don’t need you to go through all your scrolls because they all ready know them inside and out. They can come across as impatient.

The way the original poster has described it sounds as though their opponent was  quite rude. This is inexcusable. I am all for being tolerant but I think declining to play a rude opponent is very reasonable and I think I would have done the same.

 

 

 

[Eldarain]

I'm 100% on the same wavelength as the OP. I try to have the same rundown discussion on what absurd Rube Goldberg type combos my units are capable of.

This game is already annoyingly heavy on over the top combo interactions and takes up a rather large part of an evening so I absolutely want to make sure both players enter in with an understanding of what they are up against.

Maximizing the chances of having an enjoyable time after packing, transporting, setting up the table, deploying etc

Nothing makes me question my continued participation in the gaming side of this hobby than doing all that pregame work of transport etc and either winning or losing in a Gotcha fashion.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Eldarain

[Saxon]

My biggest pet hate is people who roll dice without explaining what they're doing. Spell-casting is the worst. I have frequent opponents who just roll the dice and then claim "oh that one failed it was only a mystic shield, now i'm casting my f*ck you spell" after spending 3 turns casting the 'f*ck you' spell first.

Another one is not explaining their artefacts/spell choices before the game and then surprise its very convenient that you chose a very situational spell without telling me. 

I frequently get accused to trying to slow the game down for asking an opponent why he's rolling 21 dice instead of the 14 from the previous turn. How am i meant to know you've used a command ability.... how many command points are you up to now...... 

Communication in a game is key. If you can't explain what you are doing and how you are doing it you're probably doing it wrong. Furthermore, it's important to never get upset about rules queries. Your opponent has a right to know how you are doing what you are doing. There can be a lot of special abilities in a game and people do make mistakes so it is more than fair to make them double check something. 

[Overread]

@Saxon honestly I'd enforce people announcing before a roll. It doesn't matter how good or fast you are, that's part of game etiquette. Plus as you say, how you can you know what they are doing if they aren't communicating it. It doesn't matter how "obvious" or "oh its the only thing I can do what else would I do" or any of those other arguments. 

 

In general if someone is fast rolling dice and not telling you what it for then chances are they are using it to cheat. Even if its just to play fast and rush through the game that still counts as a form of cheating. Plus as you say there's always the chance that, not every time, but sometime they get a bad roll so shift what ability they were using the dice for. Something that they might not even quite realise they are doing; but which would certainly be cheating. 

 

Artefacts and spell choices should be written on the army list. Even if it means scribbling out the last games choices and editing in new ones for a new game if they are using the same army. It goes on the army list for their reference (reminds them what they took) and for your reference. 

 

As you say communication is key, honestly I'd turn games down to people who refuse to communicate. 

[Lord Krungharr]

I really like that we can all check out units from other armies in the app, for free!  But the army allegiance traits, spells, artefacts, and battalion rules should be divulged to the opponent.  Doesn't take that long before the game.  Spells spelled out right before casting attempt is best, as then the opponent can decide if they want to unbind it or not.

But I agree, plans of how they want to combine the use of things, that's the fun surprise during the game

Also, always ask to see the army list beforehand, and add up the points!  I've had many players not add correctly (when not having an app generated list that is); like the Big Waaagh player who whooped my butt, but turns out he had an extra 400 points of Orruks in there.  Of course a 2K Big Waaagh would've whooped me anyways.